Anti-Sacrilege Act facts for kids

The Anti-Sacrilege Act was a French law passed in April 1825. It aimed to punish actions seen as disrespectful to religion, especially the Catholic faith. This law was introduced during the reign of King Charles X. While the law allowed for the death penalty in some cases, this extreme punishment was never actually used. One person, François Bourquin, was sentenced to a very long time of forced labour for stealing sacred items. The law was later removed in 1830 when Louis-Philippe became king during the July Monarchy.

Why the Law Was Proposed

In April 1824, the government of King Louis XVIII first suggested this law. The government was led by Jean-Baptiste, Comte de Villèle, who was part of a group called the Ultra-royalists. This group strongly supported the king and traditional values.

The elections in December 1823 had given the Ultra-royalists a large majority in the Chamber of Deputies. This was a part of the French Parliament. Despite this strong support, the first version of the law did not pass. It was rejected by the Chamber of Peers, another part of Parliament.

When Charles X became king in September 1824, Villèle's government tried again. They said the law was needed because more sacred items, like special cups called chalices and containers called ciboria, were being stolen.

The government first thought about different levels of punishment. If someone disrespected vessels that held holy objects, they could face forced labour for life. But if someone disrespected vessels holding consecrated hosts (the bread used in Catholic communion), the punishment was meant to be death.

What Supporters Said

The minister in charge of the law, Comte de Peyronnet, said the law was a "necessary expiation." This meant it was a way to make up for many years when people didn't care much about religion. Another supporter, the Comte de Breteuil, said that to make laws respected, religion should be respected first.

Louis, Vicomte de Bonald, a writer who opposed the French Revolution, strongly argued that the death penalty was needed for these crimes.

What Opponents Said

Some members of the opposition, known as the Doctrinaires, disagreed. These included people like the Baron de Barante and Benjamin Constant. They argued that the law mixed up human justice with God's judgment. They believed the government should only protect religious freedom, not decide what God thinks.

Pierre Paul Royer-Collard said that human laws and religious beliefs should not be confused. He stated that the law was "anti-constitutional" and went against freedom of thought. He felt it forced one religion on everyone.

Benjamin Constant, who was a Protestant, explained that his own religion prevented him from supporting the law. He pointed out that the idea of Christ being truly present in the host was a Catholic belief. He argued that if someone believed in this, they might be "insane" for disrespecting it. But if they didn't believe, then their actions couldn't be called "sacrilege" in the same way. In that case, they should only be punished for causing trouble.

Even some politicians who were generally traditional, like the Comte de Lanjuinais, agreed. He said that the law could not "judge offenses against God." Because of these arguments, Justice Minister Peyronnet decided to limit the law. It would only apply to sacrileges done "voluntarily and publicly." This was to avoid interfering with people's private thoughts or religious confessions.

Hugues Felicité Robert de Lamennais also criticized the government. He questioned how sacrilege could be a crime against religion but not against God.

How the Vote Went

After many long and intense discussions, the law was passed. The Peers' Chamber voted 127 to 96 in favor. The Chamber of Deputies voted 210 to 95 in favor. The law received support from thirteen peers who were also religious leaders. Without their votes, the part about the death penalty would not have passed in the Peers' Chamber.

The Anti-Sacrilege Act stated that an act was considered sacrilege only if it was done "voluntarily, publicly and out of hatred or contempt for religion."

What Happened After

The part of the law that allowed the death penalty was never actually used. However, a man named François Bourquin was sentenced to forced labour for life because of sacrilegious burglary. This means he stole sacred items in a way that was seen as disrespectful to religion.

The law was removed after the July Revolution in 1830, during the first few months of Louis-Philippe's time as king.

Historian Jean-Noël Jeanneney called the law "anachronistic." This means it seemed out of place for its time. He pointed out that the Ultra-Royalists went against ideas from the Enlightenment. These ideas, found in books like Diderot's and d'Alembert's Encyclopédie, suggested that the government should not interfere in religious matters.

See also

• Bourbon Restoration
• Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution
• France in the nineteenth century
• French criminal law
• Roman Catholicism in France